It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Does Aluminum Cut Steel?

page: 75
13
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Would you care to tell us the topic of this discussion? Is it not aluminum cutting through steel? So what is your problem with staying on topic?




posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by buddhasystem

See my two posts on armor-piercing warheads. You and ULTIMA1 have been explained multiple times how Al can get through Fe.


I noted your two cents. They are irrelevant to the subject of this discussion.


Brilliant... More of the same... Demanding an answer and when it doesn't fit your pre-fab theory, dismiss it as irrelevant. Sorry but it's pretty relevant as a demonstration of principle.


Unless, you wish to contend the twins towers were impacted by cruise missiles and not commercial jetliners. Is that now your contention?


You are really running circles trying to not concede defeat. Did I mention cruise missiles in my note about armor penetrators made of softer metals? No I did not.


".....dissociation of water molecules with energy numbers...."? Exactly how is that relevant to this discussion?


Well you laid out this weird theory first when discussing the combustion process at WTC. First it was O2 breaking into two atoms of Oxygen upon inhalation by humans, because of the body heat, then the water evaporating from a puddle because it converts into hydrogen and oxygen!


If you are interesting in learning about evaporation of water, there are many, many Internet sites covering that topic - from remedial to advanced.


Oh, I had enough of physics classes to last me a lifetime.


Haven't you have your fill of red herring yet?


I'm not tired at all of exposing the false nature of your self-proclaimed expertise in physics and other sciences. You pass judgement on the WTC physics as if you were some kind of a guru, and you recommended that I take a remedial class; now you are getting a full face of physics yourself. I rather enjoy it.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Any people inside the towers lived to tell anyone else about alleged plane parts, on the floors those planes were alleged to have impacted? Where is that certified documented evidence which proves that and live witnesses to validate it? Hearsay is not proof.

Because the only people who could possibly know and bear witness, are the people on the floors the alleged planes came through. Unfortunately, they are not here to validate that.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I just can't shake my conviction that, under the right circumstances, aluminium can indeed 'cut' steel & some simple calculations failed to make it an impossibility. I also see the maths and the recorded observations of the event corroborating each other which is re-assuring.

This thread has become a wealth of reference data in alternative science and I picked up some amazing ideas for eco-friendly sources of fuel for my car based on hydrogen hydroxide too



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


It does take much more than hypothetical calculations to prove it. It takes physical experimentation under observable laboratory conditions.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
But we've agreed before that the engine cores, landing gear and attachment points, engine attachment points, nose gear, and more would have the concentrated mass to punch through.

Why are you backpedaling now?


Oh, but those parts are not made of aluminum, which is what i was talking about.


[edit on 3-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:55 AM
link   
OK.

Its perfectly clear to me that, no matter what anyone says, no matter how many analogies are used and no matter how much science is presented, Orion and Ultima will not accept that a 200,000lb mass at 400+mph was capable of punching a hole through the outer box steel walls of the WTC towers, or that its not as simple as "aluminium cutting steel".

The constant refusal to accept that flies in the face of physics. They say its not possible for it to happen, yet neither of them seems to have the power of their convictions to present their arguments, including the full science to show that its not possible, despite being shown that its perfectly possible.

So - in short, no one is going to be able to answer to this question to their satisfaction because, quite simply, they will just refuse to accept any answer given.

And as none of us are capable of recreating the actual events of the day and standing the two of them infront of it - further contribution to this thread is a pointless waste of time.

Should anyone wish to carry on smacking their head against the wall, I wish them luck.

[edit on 3/0108/08 by neformore]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The one running circles is you, and you appear to not realize that highly self-evident fact.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The one running circles is you, and you appear to not realize that highly self-evident fact.


Oh really? You consistently reject an argument when it hits home. You asked about "any aluminum" cutting through steel at "any velocity" and you received an example of how a soft metal does it at high velocity. Then all of a sudden you declare that this is irrelevant. Why? Because you are stuck your presupposed notion. Further, OrionStars, you posted some theories here that are demonstrably false and insisted that they come from your considerable background in science. This I find laughable, to be honest.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Something has to be proven by real time visual observation not hearsay from others. No one should simply accept what has not been proved by visual observation in real time, and/or consensus from many in the various fields of science community.

Videos and phots are not real time observations. "Popular Mechanics" is not a peer reviewed professional science or structural engineering journal. The PM article became the "official" report because George W. Bush declared that is the way it would be.

Thomas Eagar is not professionally qualified to assess anything that happened on 9/11. A PhD does not mean someone is qualified to assess that in which they have no expertise and/or educational background to assess. Thomas Eagar in a professor in the area of material handling, not structural engineering. He lives in what is commonly referred to as "the ivory tower of academia". He had no hands on experience in structural engineering or applied physics.

George W. Bush would not have a recorded GPA C average had it not been for the fact he was a generational Yale student from a very wealthy powerful family, plus a generational fraternal brother in Skull and Bones. In other words, W was hardly a science whiz, much less anyone qualified to determine what should have been the properly forensically investigated 9/11 criminal case vs the cover-up and whitewash it did become.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I am not in the market for red herrings today or any day. I am only responding to inform you of that, if it has not been made perfectly clear to you already. Which it appears it still has not. This time there can be no excuse it was not made clear to you, or anyone else selling any other logical fallacies.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Its perfectly clear to me that, no matter what anyone says, no matter how many analogies are used and no matter how much science is presented,


Just as clear as you use improper analogies to try to prove something instead of looking at the facts of what the plane is made of and what the buildings were made of, and what the buildings were built to withstand.



[edit on 3-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Just as clear as you use improper analogies to try to prove something instead of looking at the facts of what the plane is made of and what the buildings were made of, and what the buildings were built to withstand.

So, to be fair, the buildings were either defective in design or they were hit by a force greater than they were built to withstand. Actually, whether designed for it or not, the rating was obviously exceeded or the site would be too crowded to put up the new freedom tower.

Things I learnt here:
Water can be dissociated into an explosive gas mixture without all that pesky electrolysis system.
Falling mass generates a vacuum underneath it.
Pale smoke always indicates an explosive has detonated.
Black holes can be used for demolition.

Aluminium breaking steel seems a piece of cake in this alternative scientific dimension.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
I am only responding to inform you of that, if it has not been made perfectly clear to you already. Which it appears it still has not. This time there can be no excuse it was not made clear to you, or anyone else selling any other logical fallacies.


This post is nothing but a cloud of ink that you think will help you retreat from a pretty laughable stuff you posted, like water spontaneously decomposing into H and O every time you blowdry your hair, or O2 mysteriosly choosing to dissociate in mono atomic O (which is pretty lethal upon inhalation) evey time you take a breath. To bolster these claims which go way, way beyond ridiculous, you credited yourself with deep knowledge of both "classic" and quantum physics. And then you owned yourself with the "evidence" question to which answer was that copper routinely penetrates steel at high speed, as is evident in anti-tank weapons.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


If anyone else got out of these discussions what you did, perhaps the time has come to be tested for reading comprehension skills ASAP.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
So, to be fair, the buildings were either defective in design or they were hit by a force greater than they were built to withstand.



No, actually if you do any research you would find most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for something else happening.

So simply put the planes did not cause the buildings to collapse.



[edit on 3-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


If anyone else got out of these discussions what you did, perhaps the time has come to be tested for reading comprehension skills ASAP.



Quite hilarious how you keep insisting that other people take all sorts of classes just to help them pull up to your lofty level of intelligence... Pretty rich for a person who indeed wrote this masterpiece:


Under normal atmospheric conditions in fire, the heat is unbonding oxygen from other gases in the atmosphere. Think the evaporation process of unbonding two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. Then bonding one carbon and one part oxygen in smoke and other parts of the atmosphere. If fire is utilizing O2, in proper mix, there will be blue flame not orange or yellow. Blue flame indicates a fire is not oxygen deprived


So there, your interlocutor read it quite right, and again, you've been shown to post bizzare nonsense, all the while recommending that other board members improve their educational level



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No, actually if you do any research you would find most reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have kept standing if not for something else happening.

So simply put the planes did not cause the buildings to collapse.

I agree with that absolutely
The buildings did survive the plane impacts and we have lots of evidence to support it.

Other things happened after that to cause them to fail



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PilgrumI agree with that absolutely
The buildings did survive the plane impacts and we have lots of evidence to support it.

Other things happened after that to cause them to fail


Then why did you state this?

So, to be fair, the buildings were either defective in design or they were hit by a force greater than they were built to withstand.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by PilgrumI agree with that absolutely
The buildings did survive the plane impacts and we have lots of evidence to support it.

Other things happened after that to cause them to fail


Then why did you state this?

So, to be fair, the buildings were either defective in design or they were hit by a force greater than they were built to withstand.



ULTIMA1,

it' plain obvious from the Pilgrum's post that what he meant was the destruction of some of the columns in the WTC due to impact, not the fact that the WTC eventually fell down. Or maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it reads.

Damage happened because the buildings were not build in such way that not a column would be severed on impact.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join